You are here: / Second Department

Tag Archive for: Second Department

RELIANCE ON A JURISDICTIONAL THEORY AT TRIAL WHICH DIFFERED FROM THE JURISDICTION CRITERIA ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF FAIR NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conspiracy conviction, determined the difference between the jurisdictional allegations in the indictment and the jurisdiction theory relied on at trial deprived defendant of fair notice of the charges against him:

Proof at trial that varies from an indictment may compromise the defendant’s right to fair notice of the charges and his or her right to have those charges determined by the grand jury … . Here, the indictment alleged jurisdiction in Kings County on the basis of overt acts committed in Kings County. However, the proof at trial did not support that theory and, as charged to the jury, jurisdiction in Kings County was based on conduct which had, or was likely to have, a particular effect upon Kings County pursuant to CPL 20.40(2)(c). As the evidence presented at trial varied from the indictment, and, contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant did not have fair notice of the jurisdictional theory presented to the jury, the judgment convicting the defendant of conspiracy in the second degree must be reversed and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial … . People v Wilson, 2016 NY Slip Op 05660, 2nd Dept 7-27-16

CRIMINAL LAW (RELIANCE ON A JURISDICTIONAL THEORY AT TRIAL WHICH DIFFERED FROM THE JURISDICTION CRITERIA ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF FAIR NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/INDICTMENTS (RELIANCE ON A JURISDICTIONAL THEORY AT TRIAL WHICH DIFFERED FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL CRITERIA ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF FAIR NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)/JURISDICTION (CRIMINAL LAW, CONSPIRACY CHARGE, RELIANCE ON A JURISDICTIONAL THEORY AT TRIAL WHICH DIFFERED FROM THE  JURISDICTIONAL CRITERIA ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF FAIR NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, NEW TRIAL ORDERED)

,

WHERE LIABILITY IS CONCEDED BY STIPULATION, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST RUNS FROM THE SUBSEQUENT DAMAGES VERDICT.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Balkin, determined, where liability is conceded by stipulation, prejudgment interest runs from the date of the subsequent damages verdict, not the date of the stipulation. Here the damages trial was held 2 1/2 years after the stipulation was entered. Had liability been determined by “verdict, report or decision,” interest would have run from the liability determination:

When the determinations of liability and damages are made together, the computation of prejudgment interest under CPLR 5002 is straightforward … . When, however, the determinations of liability and damages are bifurcated, the general rule is that prejudgment interest under CPLR 5002 runs from the date of the “verdict, report or decision” as to liability, rather than from the date of the “verdict, report or decision” as to damages … . * * *

Stipulations are different. They are not adjudications made by a third party, but voluntary agreements, or contracts, by which the opposing parties themselves chart their own course in a way that makes sense for them… . * * *

Clearly, the Legislature did not expressly include stipulations in CPLR 5002. Had the Legislature wished to include stipulations, it easily could have done so, as it has in other statutes… . Mahoney v Brockbank, 2016 NY Slip Op 05630, 2nd Dept 7-27-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (WHERE LIABILITY IS CONCEDED BY STIPULATION, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST RUNS FROM THE SUBSEQUENT DAMAGES VERDICT)/NEGLIGENCE (PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, WHERE LIABILITY IS CONCEDED BY STIPULATION, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST RUNS FROM THE SUBSEQUENT DAMAGES VERDICT)/PREJUDGMENT INTEREST (WHERE LIABILITY IS CONCEDED BY STIPULATION, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST RUNS FROM THE SUBSEQUENT DAMAGES VERDICT)/INTEREST (PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, WHERE LIABILITY IS CONCEDED BY STIPULATION, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST RUNS FROM THE SUBSEQUENT DAMAGES VERDICT)/DAMAGES (PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, WHERE LIABILITY IS CONCEDED BY STIPULATION, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST RUNS FROM THE SUBSEQUENT DAMAGES VERDICT)

PROPER VENUE FOR CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS STARTED IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES IS THE COUNTY WHERE THE FIRST ACTION WAS STARTED.

The Second Department determined the proper venue for consolidated actions which had been started in different counties was the county in which the first action was started:

… [I]n the absence of special circumstances, where the actions have been commenced in different counties, venue should be placed in the county having jurisdiction over the action commenced first … . Since venue properly lies in Richmond County with respect to this action, the first of the three subject actions to be commenced, venue of the action commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, and venue of the action commenced in the Civil Court, Queens County, should have been transferred to Richmond County. Oboku v New York City Tr. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 05635, 2nd Dept 7-27-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (PROPER VENUE FOR CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS STARTED IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES IS THE COUNTY WHERE THE FIRST ACTION WAS STARTED)/VENUE (PROPER VENUE FOR CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS STARTED IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES IS THE COUNTY WHERE THE FIRST ACTION WAS STARTED)

,

REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A SMALL CLAIMS RULING EXPLAINED; SMALL CLAIMS FINDING THAT A CONTRACT WAS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE UPHELD.

Reversing the Appellate Term, the Second Department explained the review criteria for a Small Claims Court (District Court) ruling. The Second Department upheld the Small Claims determination a contract was unenforceable as unconscionable:

An appeal from a small claims judgment is permitted “on the sole ground that substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law” (Uniform Dist Ct Act § 1807). ” Accordingly, a small claims judgment may not be overturned simply because the determination appealed from involves an arguable point on which an appellate court may differ; the deviation from substantive law must be readily apparent and the court’s determination clearly erroneous'” … .

Here, the District Court’s determination that the subject contract was unenforceable according to its literal terms because it was unconscionable was not clearly erroneous … . Tranquility Salon & Day Spa, Inc. v Caira, 2016 NY Slip Op 05637, 2nd Dept 7-27-16

 

CONTRACT LAW (REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A SMALL CLAIMS RULING EXPLAINED; SMALL CLAIMS FINDING THAT A CONTRACT WAS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE UPHELD)/APPEALS (SMALL CLAIMS, CRITERIA FOR A SMALL CLAIMS RULING EXPLAINED; SMALL CLAIMS FINDING THAT A CONTRACT WAS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE UPHELD)/SMALL CLAIMS (APPEAL, (REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A SMALL CLAIMS RULING EXPLAINED; SMALL CLAIMS FINDING THAT A CONTRACT WAS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE UPHELD)

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE DETAILS OF ARRESTS JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF PISTOL PERMIT.

The Second Department determined the petitioner’s failure to disclose the details of his prior arrests justified denial of a pistol permit:

Penal Law § 400.00(1), which sets forth the eligibility requirements for obtaining a pistol license, requires, inter alia, that the applicant be at least 21 years of age, of good moral character with no prior convictions of a felony or serious offense, a person who has not had a license revoked or who is not under a suspension or ineligibility order, and a person “concerning whom no good cause exists for the denial of the license” … . “A pistol licensing officer has broad discretion in ruling on permit applications and may deny an application for any good cause” … .

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the licensing officer’s determination that good cause existed to deny his application for a pistol license was not arbitrary and capricious. The petitioner failed to disclose all of the required details of his three prior arrests, thus hindering the licensing officer’s ability to determine his moral fitness to possess a pistol. Matter of Praino v Forman, 2016 NY Slip Op 05572, 2nd Dept 7-20-16

 

PISTOL PERMITS (FAILURE TO DISCLOSE DETAILS OF ARRESTS JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF PISTOL PERMIT)

,

DISCLOSURE OF TOWN EMAIL LIST PROPERLY ORDERED.

The Second Department determined the town board did not articulate any valid reason for refusing to disclose an email list (gblist) consisting of the addresses of town residents who wished to be kept informed of news on matters of public concern:

 

Here, the Town parties did not articulate the applicability of any enumerated exemptions under Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b), nor did they show that the privacy interests at stake outweigh the public interest in disclosure of the information … . The petitioner seeks “to further the public discourse on matters of public importance and concern in the Town” by obtaining the names and email addresses of those persons who subscribe to the gblist—persons who have willingly divulged that information to the Town so that they may receive news and information, in electronic form, on matters of public concern in the Town. The Town parties did not articulate any privacy interest that would be at stake in the disclosure of the records. The Town parties’ contention that disclosure of the requested email addresses would render the gblist subscribers more susceptible to phishing, spamming, and other email scams is speculative; the Town parties failed to show that disclosure of the information would make the gblist subscribers more susceptible to such acts than they ordinarily would be. Matter of Livson v Town of Greenburgh, 2016 NY Slip Op 05570, 2nd Dept 7-20-16

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) (DISCLOSURE OF TOWN EMAIL LIST PROPERLY ORDERED)/MUNICIPAL LAW (FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW, DISCLOSURE OF TOWN EMAIL LIST PROPERLY ORDERED)

, , ,

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the finding that appellant, had he been an adult, would have committed criminal possession of a weapon (and related offenses) was against the weight of the evidence. The Second Department clearly explained its role in a weight of the evidence review and essentially rejected the testimony of the arresting officers:

 

In conducting our weight of the evidence review, we have a responsibility to affirmatively review the record; independently assess all of the proof; substitute our own credibility determinations for those made by the Family Court in an appropriate case; determine whether the Family Court’s determination was factually correct; and acquit the appellant if we are not convinced that the Family Court’s adjudication of the appellant as a juvenile delinquent was proven beyond a reasonable doubt … . * * *

The reasonable inferences to be made from the officers’ collective testimony were that at least two other individuals were with the appellant at the time of his arrest and, contrary to the initial testimony that the appellant was the only person observed in the area of the firearm, multiple individuals were in the vicinity of the firearm at the relevant time.

In addition, when the appellant was brought to the precinct, he denied possessing the firearm and asked Officer Thomas to check to see if there were cameras in the area of the incident. Officer Thomas testified that at the end of his shift on the date in question, he returned to the scene and viewed surveillance video from a store in the area. However, he did not take notes or ask for a copy of the video, and he “completely forgot to notify anybody” of his investigation or record it in his memo book. At the time of the fact-finding hearing, he could not recall whether the video he viewed depicted the street at the relevant time. Matter of Trevor S., 2016 NY Slip Op 05574, 2nd Dept 7-20-16

 

FAMILY LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED)/EVIDENCE (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED)/CRIMINAL LAW (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED)/APPEALS (JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED)/JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED)

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF PETITIONER IN A GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING.

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined the guardianship petition should not have been denied solely because the petitioner did not comply with the order requiring the fingerprinting of petitioner as part of a criminal background check. Family Court did not have the authority to require fingerprinting:

Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, there is no express statutory fingerprinting requirement in a proceeding such as this pursuant to Family Court Act § 661(a) for “[g]uardianship of the person of a minor or infant” … . Consequently, it was improper for the Family Court to dismiss the petition based solely on the petitioner’s failure to comply with a directive to obtain fingerprinting… . Matter of Silvia N. P. L. v Jorge M. N. P., 2016 NY Slip Op 05567, 2nd Dept 7-20-16

 

FAMILY LAW (FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF PETITIONER IN A GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING)/GUARDIANSHIP (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF PETITIONER IN A GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING)/FINGERPRINTING (FAMILY LAW, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ORDER THE FINGERPRINTING OF PETITIONER IN A GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING)

,

CLAIM FOR A DE FACTO TAKING ACCRUES WHEN THE TAKING IS FIRST APPARENT, NOT WHEN IT IS FIRST DISCOVERED BY THE CLAIMANT.

The Second Department determined the structures built by the city, which caused water to accumulate on claimant’s land, were apparent when constructed in 2005. The fact that the structures were not discovered by the claimant until 2011 was not relevant. Therefore the claim for a de facto taking expired in 2008 and was time-barred:

A de facto taking claim is governed by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to claims to recover damages for injury to property set forth in CPLR 214(4) … . Such a claim accrues at the time of the taking or, at the latest, when the taking becomes apparent, regardless of the time of discovery … .

Here, the record established that the headwall and overflow outlet were readily visible when the alleged taking occurred in September 2005. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the claimant’s time to bring any claim for damages for the alleged de facto taking expired in September 2008… . Matter of South Richmond Bluebelt, Phase 3. 594 Assoc., Inc. (City of New York), 2016 NY Slip Op 05577, 2nd Dept 9-20-26

 

EMINENT DOMAIN (CLAIM FOR A DE FACTO TAKING ACCRUES WHEN THE TAKING IS FIRST APPARENT, NOT WHEN IT IS FIRST DISCOVERED BY THE CLAIMANT)/MUNICIPAL LAW (EMINENT DOMAIN, CLAIM FOR A DE FACTO TAKING ACCRUES WHEN THE TAKING IS FIRST APPARENT, NOT WHEN IT IS FIRST DISCOVERED BY THE CLAIMANT)/DE FACTO TAKING (EMINENT DOMAIN, CLAIM FOR A DE FACTO TAKING ACCRUES WHEN THE TAKING IS FIRST APPARENT, NOT WHEN IT IS FIRST DISCOVERED BY THE CLAIMANT)

STATUTE ALLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS TO CHOOSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS DOES NOT APPLY TO CONDOMINIUMS WHICH LIE ON THE BORDER BETWEEN TWO DISTRICTS.

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court’s grant of a motion to set aside plaintiffs’ verdict, determined the statute which allows a property owner to select a school district when the boundary between school districts passes through the owner’s property does not apply to condominiums. The case turned on the interpretation of the statute, which referred only to boundaries passing through single family residences:

… [T]he plain language of Education Law § 3203(1)(b) and its legislative history demonstrate that the statute is applicable only where property is improved by one single family dwelling unit, and not multiple single family dwelling units, and where the school district boundary line intersects property that the dwelling unit is located on. The Supreme Court properly determined that the subject 28-unit condominium complex is not “an owner-occupied single family dwelling unit” located on property intersected by a boundary line within the meaning of Education Law § 3203(1)(b). Therefore, the court properly granted those branches of the school defendants’ motion which were to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs … . Palm v Tuckahoe Union Free School Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 05558. 2nd Dept 7-20-16

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (STATUTE ALLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS TO CHOOSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS DOES NOT APPLY TO CONDOMINIUMS WHICH LIE ON THE BORDER BETWEEN TWO DISTRICTS)/SCHOOL DISTRICTS (STATUTE ALLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS TO CHOOSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS DOES NOT APPLY TO CONDOMINIUMS WHICH LIE ON THE BORDER BETWEEN TWO DISTRICTS)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy